Ethical Relativism Analysis

In sociology, the definition of a drug is “any chemical substance that has a direct affect on the user’s physical, psychological, and/or intellectual functioning” (“Drugs” 3). According to this definition, many people may argue that the United States is a pro-drug society because of its legalization of alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceuticals, however I believe that the United States is an anti-drug society. Although the United States has legalized tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceuticals, there are many drugs that are still illegal. It can be assume that these illegal drugs they are dangerous and somehow poses a threat to society, but its illegalization has more to do with economics and power more than anything else. According to the film, “A Marijuana

Ethical Relativism is, in fact, common goals, morals, values, traditions and ethics that cultures, small groups or societies share. Some different societies condemn individuals do to being involve in abortions, genocide, racism, sexism, torture or suicide (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, S.J & Meyer, pp.45-46, Summer 1992). In certain tribes suicide, it is considered noble if one takes their life. In the

Ethical relativism is not just simply one concept. It can be divided into two categories cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism states that what a culture finds correct is what is correct, within its own realm. Ethical subjectivism are what people as individuals find correct, or the values a person stands for and what they support whereas culture relativism is has a certain standard of morality held within a culture or society. These both view people as being in charge of their own morality. However, there are some problems with the view ethical relativism itself. For instance marital rape, machismo in Hispanics culture and premarital sex. In this dissertation I will be discussing problems with ethical relativism, while using the examples above.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the legalization of marijuana in Colorado as well as the Netherlands drug policy. It has been found that even though Colorado has legalized marijuana, there are provisions that must be followed. The Netherlands however have not legalized marijuana, but they do feel that seeing possession of marijuana is not a crime, so therefore marijuana is tolerated. Colorado’s society does not agree with this legalization due to adolescent use, however the Colorado Amendment 64 protects this. The Netherlands is seen as too liberal, but they are only doing what is in the best interest of the users.

In this paper, I’m going to discuss the argument that the famous American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, has put forth regarding ‘ethical relativism’. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms and values of one's culture or society. That is, whether an action is classified as right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to

About thirty years into the nearer future, Americans rediscovered marijuana as a result of the notorious alcohol prohibition of the 1920s when “people looking for oblivion from their own troubles turned to a new way of getting high.” Consequently and realistically, America can only blame itself for marijuana’s recreational popularity, seeing as “from 1850 to 1945, the … plant was listed in the United States Pharmacopoeia.” Almost a decade after the alcohol prohibition ended is when marijuana was first perceived “as a dangerous, addictive, ‘gateway drug’” by the United States Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Then, “in 1970, the Controlled Substances Act was passed … [which] classified marijuana, [alongside Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD)] and heroin, as a Schedule I drug, meaning that [the drug] had a high risk of abuse [with] no acceptable medicinal use.” Within the following decade, “marijuana use in the United States declined,” then once again escalating among youth in the nineties. Meanwhile in modern-day India, people are still practicing marijuana medicinally, and exploring what advantages the “dangerous” drug has to offer (Chapter 2: The History of Marijuana 18-31).

The concept of ‘drugs’, as we understand it today, is a regulatory construct that was invented at the beginning of the 20th century as part of the creation of the international prohibition regime. Substances that come under this banner share little in common except how they are regulated. The contemporary usage of the term ‘drug’ refers most often to the two categories: medicinal

Cultural relativism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Is the thesis that a person’s culture strongly influences her modes of perception and thought” Most cultural relativists add to this definition saying that there is no standard of morality. This means that morality is relative to the particular society that one lives in. Prominent ethicist James Rachels has written against this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse

Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.

In out society drugs are considered to be addictive and lethal. People tend to abuse drugs regardless of their side effects. In many cases government agencies regulate their use. Also there are drugs that are illegal to use, produce and sale. One of those illegal drugs is marijuana. For thousands of years, marijuana has been used to treat a wide variety of sickness. It became illegal in 1937 under The Marijuana Stamp Tax Act. This act prohibits the use, sale and growing of marijuana. It was made illegal because no one understood why smoking marijuana made people feel the way they did and because appropriate researches had not been conducted about it. Though marijuana remains illegal

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.

In the span of 2013-14 the reports of drugs in Australia increased. There were record high reporting’s of many types of illicit drugs at the border patrol. Furthermore, many other illicit drugs had their second highest reporting in history. Cannabis is the most common drug in Australia. The number of detections of cannabis in 2013-2014 decreased, but the total weight of detected cannabis at the border control increased dramatically and was the biggest cannabis find in the last decade (Australian Drug Commission 2014). In the draft for the National Drug Strategy 2016-2025 cannabis is mentioned as a priority drug as it is the most common used illegal drug (Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs 2015). As the recent news that the Australian government is planning to legalise growing of medical cannabis there a gap in the policy of how to regulate medical cannabis and cannabis used as an illicit drug (Yaxley 2015).

The thesis of meta-ethical cultural relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that there are no absolute moral truths, only truths relative to the cultural context in which they exist. From this it is therefore presumed that what one society considers to be morally right, another society may consider to be morally wrong, therefore, moral right's and wrongs are only relative to a particular society. Thus cultural relativism implies that what is 'good' is what is 'socially approved' in a given culture. Two arguments in favour of cultural relativism are the 'Cultural Differences argument' and the 'Argument from the virtue of tolerance', the following essay will look at and evaluate both of these

“ A particular drug—for example, marijuana (also called hashish and bhang)—may be accepted as an appropriate adjunct to sociability in one society, used as an invaluable ingredient in religious contemplation in another, and banned by law as dangerous in a third”(Sills,1968).

Ethical Relativism What is right and wrong is a widely opinionated discrepancy among the human race. It varies between cultures, societies, religion, traditions, and endless influential factors. Ethical relativism is described by John Ladd as the “doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs”(Pojman, 24).